halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Installation Battle Pages
Since many users have a problem with the Installation battles belonging to other users, why not erase all of the data on those battle pages or move them to a usernamespace and write the battles following an admin conducted RP. At the end of each RP, the admins go to the battle page and write the data according to the RP. What do you people think?--Kebath 'Holoree 14:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC) *Well, my battle of Proto-Ring goes to a story I'll post at one point... so...Logmon 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Universes That's actually a good idea. I really hate disimbags and i'm going to sort some stuff out, which is very simular to this topic, after i've finished with the unrealism stuff. As for this, people can have different battles, which fit into different universes. Ok this is what i was planning, i won't bother waiting until after the unrealism: We have universes and number them like Marvel do with their superhero universes. We will make a help page, which can add to this new "superguide" that Ajax, and many others, want. We then say to new users, join an existing universe or make your own. Each user is free to make fanon in whatever universe they want. They could even make the same faction but in different universes! However if one user has already stollen your idea in that certain universe, and you make a different version then you'll get the Non Fanon Friendliness template on your page and you have to change it. So if your idea is already taken then go to a different universe! Now the next major thing, which we should before we do any of the above is to decide; which universe is which! I think that, down to popularity and article count, the Necros, Rebuild Era, CN, Majorians, PTI, CP, Ajax's Spartan 4's and another directly related/linked pages, should be in universe 1. Then we sort out other people's battles, characters, S4 programmes and stuff on a first come first serve bassis. Now many of you may not like this idea and think that it's biased of me to put the CN and Rebuild Era into universe 1 but that's only because they're related to the Necros and other factions/events, which contain and link to a vast amount of pages on this site. All of the pre-mentioned fanon probably uphold a decent 2000 articles and for that reason it's only fair that they are in U1. We could also make Universicons, which are like Eracons but for the universes. All of this will solve the battles and many other issues. I really stress that this is the right way to go to keep the site organised and clear. It's helpful for any new users and straight foward for the rest of us too. It will take a lot of work to pull off, no doubt, but it will be worth it in the long term. Who's with me? ---- I am, ROMANs and other stuff also go with Necros.Logmon 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Well if it's fanon friendly then yes! While the my 'universe idea' is alright, its only going to work for people who create exhaustive universes over those who just base fanon in line with Halo 1-3 and the novels. However, in response to 'deleting everybodies fanon on Installaions', how about we delete yours and create a better/worse version of it? Don't like the idea? Its exactly the same idea. I don't really think this would work, and here's a reason why: Ajax hated the RP Halo: Battle for the Ark. Well, my characters are linked to that battle, so for "Necros canon", it never takes place, as it could be consider optional and all my stuff still works. However, I don't want to go and try to classify all the articles into universes, because you could start with Necros and link probably 90% of Halo Fanon to it through article/RP connections. --MCPO James DavisLOMI HQI hear your cries 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, I wouldn't mind my Installation pages being re-written for the better. I was never really good at writing Installation pages. But you must have missed the other part of it. We can either delete them or move them to a User namespace to keep it. Btw, battle for the Ark was somewhat non cannonicle, because of my eventual godmodding of the Shield Corp. Truthfully, i don't think we should keep that page.(i.e delete it) I doubt anyone else is going to write in it. And if it is gone, your articles no longer have to reference to it.--Kebath 'Holoree 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Well i still believe that we should do this. LOMI, artilces will only be linked because of their content not because of their author's RP's articles, linked to other characters from a different faction's laser beam creators!!! Say i made a Spartan 4 called bob. He could link to a gun, which he uses that belongs to an armoury company but another character also uses that gun. However that other character, Jim, belongs to a different SPartan 4 project fighting against different enemies but at the same time as Bob. Now because Bob is in universe 1, for example, but links to Jim, who is in a different one you could say that fanon is not friendly. However as the armoury hasn't clearly stated what universe they're in we could say that it belongs in both. This way we can cut the links off and say that Bob is in U1 and Jim is in U2. This is what i mean: you don't link articles, which aren't direct or relavant to the certain page. This way it will work and if nesacery, the author may have to make duplicates of information for each universe, which their fanon belongs in. Any other issues? Wow. Just reading your simple description made my head spin. Now multiply that headspin by 10 for new users and 20 for overhauling the site and explaining it in detail. In plain terms, it's a great idea, but (forgive my French) it's too damn confusing! I'' don't understand how it's going to work, and ''I'm a sysop! Just an honest opinion, but I doubt this will work very well... Regards, SPARTAN-091Admin] [Talk] 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC) OK, now I fully understand how it works, but it'd be a pain to implement. --MCPO James DavisLOMI HQI hear your cries 21:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Yeah i agree but once we've got a load of eracons and a section about it on the Super Guide, which we'll put in soon, don't you think it will be worth it? Also S91 what i'm saying is that these universes will bring hard work but clarity and organisation to the community. I know that was a bit confusing but that was probably the most confusing part! As for the universes i think that they will work and if they do this site will be so much clearer and easier to navigate for new users. New users will know where to go to make fanon and disimbaguations will be sorted out. The numerous Spartan projects will be seperated and any articles connecting rival spartan programmes will have to be edited to incorperate information about more than one universe. This is a complicated thing to do and along with all of the other policies, which i'm throwing out at the moment, this could revolutionise the site and when it's all finished the site will be amazing. Rubbish fanon will be gone and fun will be restored within the community. If anyone has anymore complications with this then please ask me and i will sort them out. Thanks: No, I think this will just be too much effort that could be better spent elsewhere, and cause complete and utter confusion to veterans and newbies alike. However, this concept has given me an idea: what if we create a sub-page to Halo Fanon:Necros that could serve a form of Necros hub, containing all related templates, and separate sections in which each user could list their characters that are going to be involved. How about that? --MCPO James DavisLOMI HQI hear your cries 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Ok then, that sounds good. Are we going to call this universe thing a fail? ooo! Wait a minute! This forum topic was designed to discuss Installation battle pages and i've found out that many installations and their battles are NCF because in the Citidel (on Halo 3 campaign) it shows all seven halo rings but as holograms. Now a lot of the rings have atmospheres and landscapes, which look inhabitable and so therefore there are articles on this site, which are NCF. Here's the link: http://blog.ascendantjustice.com/2008/03/23/82/, just click on the links on that page to see a picture of the selected ring. Now i think we should sort this out. What do people think?